Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Involved admin and discussion participant closing with the consent of the nominator and all keep and delete !voters. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only does this fictional band lack real world significance, it even lacks much significance within the Buffy universe. This band was never an important part of any storyline on Buffy, as evidenced by the small number of episode where it appears and the fact that some of its members were never named. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll see what I can find, but if no in-depth coverage in RS can be found then this could probably serve as a redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters or to the article for Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete with redirect as second option, but in reality who is going to type Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) as a search term?-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for anyone just glancing at the article that 3 of the sources (fully half at this date) DO NOT MENTION THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE AT ALL, but are required sourcing to attempt to address WP:BLP issues related to the incident that inspired the band's name. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BEFORE fail. While the article as nominated failed to mention the critical commentary on the band, it exists: 1, 2, 3. I wouldn't mind seeing it merged into Buffyverse, but the fact is that Buffy studies means that there are multiple, independent, RS'es for almost any significant Buffyverse aspect, DabM included. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, three sources that mention the band in context of Oz being in it and don't say anything about the band itself is reason to keep? I don't think so. Got any sources that actually say anything about the band? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more; feel free to search for them yourself. Of course the band is mentioned in the context of Oz... He would be the only series credited case member who was a part of it. Again, not objecting to a merger, but the band meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is the burden of the person claiming that viable sources of encyclopedic content exist to actually provide them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens did exactly that above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. What Jclemens did was to provide links to places where the name "Dingoes ate my baby" appeared. But as Dondegroovily stated, that was all that was at the end of the links ("Dingoes ate my baby" was a fictional band in the show Buffy), not any viable sources of encyclopedic content / non trivial coverage. And so claim "well, there are others out there. feel free to search yourself" is incomplete and does not meet WP:BURDEN -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first of Jclemens' sources has a section of several pages about the band, starting at p. 123, and much of chapter 18 of the second source is about it. This is far more than trivial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the sections say quite a bit about music in Buffy, but very little about Dingoes specifically. To keep, we need sources that specifically address Dingoes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge to Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an article there, but it would probably be better to start it from scratch. Perhaps a redirect is then in order so the history is available to the creator of that article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The band has no autonomous role in the series; it might as well be one of Oz's limbs. —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), as mentioned the band's "notability" is wholly, and only, linked to the character. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did we really need to relist this? Merge to Oz looks to be the consensus, even though it wasn't my idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Consensus seems pretty clear to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the only outright "keep", and if The Red Pen of Doom also agrees, that will be both of the straight-up "delete"s, so we can just close it ourselves by consensus to merge. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am fine w/ a merge-- The Red Pen of Doom

• Merge Into Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). It should be merged inot the parent article, and it does not need its own seperate article. All of the sources listed are from the original article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Vista Community High School records in swimming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article listing the record times for swimming events at a local high school; inherently non-notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: well below usual standards for notability in sports. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No, just no! KTC (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this entirely unreferenced and incomplete article about an utterly non-notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. It's a pity this sort of article doesn't fit any "speedy" delete category. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely un-notable. PamD 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is quite unnotable. How can it be? --Artene50 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable; not suitable for an encyclopedia. DocTree (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Park Vista Community High School isn't listed in Swimming World High School Teams of the Year and the school's records are not that close to those listed in the USA High School National Records - Short Course Yards list at swimmingworldmagazine.com, which itself might make a good Wikipedia list article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia women's national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources in this article talk about the Cambodia women's national football team. The team doesn't exist and this article fails the generic notable guideline. Unless we have multiple sources that discuss the Cambodia women's national football team in depth (and this doesnt) then we cant have an article about it so i think We should delete this Orion Eclipse (talk)

Comment Headers added. Procedural only, no opinion on the article itself. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page 3 of this article on the Cambodia Football official website says there's no organized women's set-up. I can't find any sources to confirm a team exists - there's a blog port that discusses a friendly in Lao, but no official news reports (in the English Language). --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While a senior women's team may not exist, two different age group national teams have existed and represented the country in international competitions. This has been reported in English language newspapers in Cambodia and Thailand. Suggests additional coverage may exist if Thai and Khmer language resources were more accessible. If not keep, then very lest a move to Women's football in Cambodia. --LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree with LauraHale AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National teams that play in FIFA recognised matches are notable. Seems to be enough sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources and notability already covered. For info, the Madagascar women's national football team haven't played a single FIFA-recognised match, as stated through the recent frontpage DYK for that article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and encourage continued growth to this article on a Cambodian topic that has very little coverage in Wikipedia. Women's football in Cambodia does have coverage, and is finally a growing sport.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough coverage. Good work on this and similar articles by the way, we should be encouraging craetion & expansion of articles related to women's football. GiantSnowman 10:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enough information for such an almost-unknown women's football team. —Hahc21 13:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per (almost) everyone else. LauraHale deserves massive credit for these articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering the tragic history of Cambodia and the fact football isn't even among its top 4 national sports, the fact that Cambodia has been a FIFA affiliate since 1954 tells me one should keep this article. This article can grow in time. --Artene50 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Dave Gibbons. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment: Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. essay-style review. notability not established. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems to be a new comic book released through a new app. See here and here. It seems it is the app that is getting the coverage, with this comic only getting mention as one of the things available through the app. So far, I don't see any independent coverage, but it might be WP:TOOSOON. The co-author/supervisor Dave Gibbons is notable, however. Note that I removed copy pasted text from here. Michitaro (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dave Gibbons. Right now the coverage is pretty much focusing on the app, with the comic being mentioned but not being the focus of the articles. Since you have a known entity making the comic it's likely that it will get coverage in the future, but we can't guarantee that it will, so it's like it's said above: it's just too soon to say that this comic will become notable. I think that this would probably be a good redirect to Gibbons for now. I was going to see if I could rescue this, but pretty much the only sources out there are more about the app than the comic and it's just too soon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - This currently has no independent non-trvial coverage. It may someday. A redirect or delete would both work, but the redirect would channel people to an appropriate article where it could be mentioned briefly.I would encourage the nominator to just redirect articles like this where there is a known notable component other than the specific topic of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Redirecting to Gibbons is probably the best option, but it should be made clear that he is not the author of this comic, but its "executive producer" as it states here. Michitaro (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F-CRIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relates to a project which has been commissioned for Proofs of Concept etc. and was flagged for CSD A7. This was opposed by the article creator on grounds that "F-CRIN has no website and it is the only way for users to obtain information about it"; CSD was then removed by IPs. Wikipedia is not a webhosting site for project documents that have no other outlet so the article was Prodded on grounds that "No evidence that this project has achieved the notability required to appear on Wikipedia." Prod removed by IP without comment; stated concerns remain so bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development to which "European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network" redirects.Novangelis (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That is a novel argument - "we need to keep this article BECAUSE it has no independent sources" - but it doesn't fly. And it doesn't appear to be true; information is available on the web here. This agency doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORG guidelines, with no independent sourcing at the article and literally zero coverage at Google News Archive. I oppose a redirect because the proposed target article doesn't mention this subject and IMO is not likely to; it covers a much broader portfolio than this agency. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kindness is, in general, a good thing, but MelanieN is way too kind in calling the argument to keep this article "novel". The word I would use is "spurious". We keep articles about notable topics. We don't keep articles about non-notable topics written by people who are trying to get attention for the topic by writing a Wikipedia article. We are not a free web hosting service - we are an encyclopedia of articles about notable topics, and this one isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sometimes "kindness" can be hard to distinguish from "sarcasm." --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per Cullen. GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Storybook Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly fan-coined Term for a loose collection of related games; no official status and only passing mentions on gaming sites that may or may not be reliable sources (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not a fan-coined term. Clearly labeled on the front of one of the games boxes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_and_the_Black_Knight_Cover.jpg Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, amended. Thanks for pointing that out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even thought it's not a fan coined term, it doesn't need it's own article. It's a series that only consists of 2 games at this point, and anything/everything that needs to be said about them is/can be written on the game's respective articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete When this third game comes out it could possibly be expanded and added to, but at the moment the best it could get to is a 2-in-1 article consiting of cut-down versions of the other two with slightly different wording. Yellow1996 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the record, that should probably be more of a if a third game comes out". A third title has been vaguely rumored, but never even close to being officially confirmed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, I was just going by what the article said. I've only played one of these (long ago) and am not really "up" on the newer Sonic games. If it's just been vaguely rumored then we can't go on that at all. Yellow1996 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I hadn't realized the article claimed that, the last time I had read the article that part wasn't in there. Anyways, the article doesn't fully describe things, if you check the sources closely, a Sonic fansite claimed that a third game was announced at an Expo by Sega of Mexico, and some sources covered the fact that the fansite claimed this. However, no other sources were actually there to verify it. Furthermore, Sega of Mexico is by no means a major branch of the company, they merely release Sega games made by other Sega branches, and no other Sega branch has ever announced this, and now a year has elapsed... Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Sonic and the Secret Rings#Legacy. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 11:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N. Gopalakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Where to start? Firstly, it's difficult to find any information about this person because we don't know his full name, and there are a number of possibly-notable Gopalakrishnans whose first names start with "N." If it matters, WorldCat seems to think that it's "Narayanan."^[1]

What I have found, though, is a lack of significant coverage of him outside of promotional pieces.^[2] The bio details I thought would be easy to verify weren't; for instance, there's no mention of him working at/for the University of Alberta outside of his widely-spread copy/pasted peacock bio.

The article says he has "60 books to his credit," but WorldCat only knows about nineteen,^[1] and all of those are self-published, i.e., they don't count towards his notability (note: I don't think he wrote Mental Health and You,^[3] as there would have been a thirteen year gap between that and his next book; also, it's only 93 pages and no libraries appear to have it in their collection).

So far as his scientific career goes:

• The article says he has "50 scientific research papers in national and international scientific journals." Google scholar shows 73 articles by "N Gopalakrishnan" published between 1973-2001,^[4] but it's pretty clear that they weren't all written by the same person. I'm guessing that his are the ones about agriculture and food chemistry, which means that his highest-ranked article has 33 citations.
• The article claims that he has seven patents, but Google can't find any of them.^[5]
• I've found no sign of his "6 awards for scientific research, 9 science popularization awards from India and abroad," or "two fellowships."

All in all: I don't see how he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG (and the WP:SPAs working on this article haven't helped it any). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of evidence of notability so far produced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per well-researched and well-argued statements by the nominator. Not a perfect case of non-notability, but still significantly below the standard cut-off. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent evidence of notability beyond a few puff pieces. Famous_dog (c) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Batman Begins. Black Kite (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keysi Fighting Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be a lack of independent coverage of this martial art and it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:MANOTE. This style gained most of its attention for being used in Batman movies, but even that coverage only qualifies as passing mentions. I think the contents best belong in Batman Begins, but an attempt to put it there was reverted. I didn't find enough to support a standalone article, but I thought I'd let the WP community decide what to do with this article. Papaursa (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batman Begins. As analogy, if a movie used an unusual cinematographic technique, it would be mentioned in the movie article. If the technique were used in several movies, it would be notably enough to have its own article. I think the notability of this Martial Art is dependent on the movie and belongs in that article. jmcw (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the reaction with the previous attempt to merge with Batman Begins was in part due to the size of the section. One or two lines max. If we want to keep the level of detail than there would have to be a separate article. The analogy with respect to the unusual cinematographic technique still holds - lots of detail means separate article. From another angle even though the notability is obtained from its inclusion in the film, that still makes it notable. Notability does not necessarily have to depend on number of schools or practioners. I am on the fence with respect to the article - is there such a choice as Weak Merge?Peter Rehse (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the passing mentions I saw confer notability, but I'm fine with merging (actually, it's what I'd prefer). Papaursa (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging will not work since you would get the same reaction as last time. If this article is to be deleted a redirect to what is already in the Batman Begins film is all we can really hope for.

I have added a couple of lines to Batman Begins. Let's see if it survives.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batman Begins. I have conducted a reasonably thorough search for independent sources on the Keysi Fighting Method, and have not found any reliable references to support the notability of the subject in its own right. There are very few substantial articles on the subject, and all of them refer to the subject in the context of the Batman movies. In reading the sources and the Wikipedia article as it currently stands, I do not see any clear justification for a separate article on the subject. Janggeom (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should NOT be deleted. KFM is a legitamite style of Martial Arts that is unique to itself and it does not fall under any other Martial Art. With over 100 schools that span all over the World it is not a style that just a couple people are practicing, nor is it a style that was pieced together from other Arts. Both the techniques and the learning 'method" of this Martial Art are unique to KFM.

This year KFM will also be used in another action movie by the name of "One Shot" with Tom Cruise, which is scheduled to be released in December of 2012. Andy Norman (the KFM Co-Founder)personally trained Tom Cruise for the movie.

KFM continues to grow here in the USA as it is in Spain, Italy, the UK, Austrailia, Norway and now Canada. Any questions feel free to call me 917-596-2840 or go to any one of our websites: www.KFMNorthAmerica.com or www.KFMNewYork.com. I would be happy to verify all and any information about KFM. Thank You -John Leabo KFM North American Chief Instructor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.52 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to show this art is notable, outside of the movies, there needs to be significant coverage of this art from reliable third party sources. If you have such sources you should add them to the article (or least give them here). Papaursa (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Martial Arts illustrated (the Uk's number one Martial Arts Magazine), we are on the cover of their April magazine with Tom Cruise next to us. Here is the link: http://www.martialartsunltd.co.uk/martial-arts-illustrated

If you need more verifications then that let me know and I will supply. -John Leabo KFM North America Chief Instructor   http://www.martialartsunltd.co.uk/martial-arts-illustrated

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scenera Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entry is not worthy of wikipedia page (Notability, based on WP:NOTE and WP:CORP) and seems to have become a running argument between two parties which is beneath wikipedia.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 16. Snotbot  t • c »  16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have to point out that "a running argument between two parties" is all too typical of what wikipedia is about. But in this case it doesn't appear relevant as an AfD criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has dispute resolution practices. I don't recall article deletion being part of that process. I don't believe any attempt has been made to resolve any disputes for this pages.--Zepheydog (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only reference with in-depth coverage doesn't actually mention the name of this company. A move to FotoMedia might be worth considering if more refs come to light. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete through lack of reliable sources that specifically mention the name of the company in the head of the article -- or Merge/Move to FotoMedia as per Stuartyeates. I found nothing about Scenera Research that demonstrated any notability. I haven't looked to see if FotoMedia is notable (no time today). Ubelowme (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn't seem to locate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenera Research, the first AfD process. Could someone kindly link to that, if it exists? Thanks in advance. Ubelowme (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI added more sources. I agree a move/merge to FotoMedia makes sense if its news coverage qualifies it as notable.--Zepheydog (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the above. Callitlikeicit —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge-Move I can see questioning some of the sources as they are blogs. The writer of the "priorart" blog, Joe Mullin, is a professional news reporter. Still, it is a blog. On the other hand, if Law.com and Law360.com aren't reliable sources, then most articles on Wikipedia don't have reliable sources. Both these sources are relied upon and highly regarded in the legal community. Masshightech.com is well staffed with editors and reporters - and is owned by American City Business Journals, the largest owner of city business journals in the country. There hasn't been any dispute about the correctness of the information in the article. --Zepheydog (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that they're blogs. The issue is that they don't discuss the subject in great detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I understand. Thanks. I mis-parsed Whpq's posting. The references clearly are all focused on Fotomedia Technologies and not Scenera Research.--Zepheydog (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Tonywalton. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Larmouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. Part of the article (such as the bit about an OBE and private box at St. James' Park) almost seem hoaxy, but this definitely isn't a CSD job. Like I said, I can't find any reliable sources. Loads of self-published stuff on google but nothing else. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It reads like an autobiography, to me, and I've deleted all the bits that were hoaxy/trying to be funny (though the article's creator has restored them). That doens't leave a lot left: he's a local radio presenter for 2hrs a week. I looked for sources but found nothing reliable, so he fails WP:GNG and, more specifically, WP:ENT. Dricherby (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the creator's user page is be a copy of the article so it looks very much like an autobiography. Dricherby (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The OBE issue was admittedly foolish, however it was merely an error on my part. I was given the information from the person in question, who has since been in touch to say that the OBE was only meant as a joke. As you rightly state, philanthropy in Palestine isn't an issue likely to bring about such an award. However, I am assured that the rest of the article in question is genuine by the person themselves. NewcastleCelebrities (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012

Note: the above comment was posted, unsigned, to the talk page of this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The original version of the article contained two blatantly made-up references to newspaper articles and already had a {{BLP sources}} tag backdated to September 2010 (the article was created on 2012-06-23). Although there is some non-hoax content (assuming the person went to the schools claimed, is a radio host, and so on), I'm moving towards feeling that this should be G3-speedied as a blatant hoax. Dricherby (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wouldn't object. Tbh I would've removed the bogus sources and then nominated it for G3 myself, but I've been yelled at for trying to pull that one in the past. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the cited sources mention this person in any way that would make him notable enough for inclusion in another article, let alone to have an article about himself. References to his attending school (not notable anyway) just go to those schools' sites and do not say anything about him. Stand up comedia reference says he has no tour dates. Would not be opposed to a speedy as a hoax, or wasn't there a speedy for not even trying to say anything that would make someone notable? DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it falls just short of WP:A7 because it does make at least some claim to importance (philanthropy, stand up comedy etc.). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my feeling, too. Dricherby (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy-delete. CSD A7 or G3, if this had not already been done so. -- KC9TV 00:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts About the Nats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Seems it was debuted by the team as a fight song in 2008, and has no lasting notability. [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Note that the I removed the lyrics from the page, since they were a likely copyvio. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NSONG, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not attempt to indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9." This song does not meet any of the criteria set forth in the applicable guideline. It may merit a one-sentence mention in the Washington Nationals article; it does not merit a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Force fm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP user. From talk page AFD rationale - non-notable defunct pirate radio station, self-published by user 'FORCE6' 82.153.97.255 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete None of the sources cited meet WP:RS in the slightest. Nothing in there even suggesting notability to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Certainly not enough to have a whole article. Clearly just vanityspamicruft. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete -- An illegal radio station of unknown significance, which probably operated 1994-2005. The article says it has ceased broadcasting, and I presume that happened when the transmitter was seized. Such radio stations can now operate legally as net-broadcasters, but the article says nothing of that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence presented of reaching WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. j⚛e decker^talk 18:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal vasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF Apparently this article was his graduation present[3] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sure this guy is great at what he does and the article was made in good faith unfortunatly Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball of future notable people, not every Dr can have an article unfortunatlySeasider91 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More or less this is just a WP:Resume and does not belong on Wikipedia. - The Determinator p t c 20:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per Seasider; and WP:TOOSOON. Not enough awards or Google hits. No prejudice against recreation. We do wish you well Vishal! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation counts are far too low for WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF no source to prove WP:GNG either. --DBigXray 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's subject, at its presence (he definitely can be notable in the future) fails WP:PROF and does not feature significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. →Bmusician 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia cannot have a page for every mathematics Ph.D. I'm sure the article was made in good faith but this fails WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaganK (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No third-party references and no evidence of notability Anbu121 (talk me) 09:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (announcers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced neologism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose you mean

1. "the article cites no sources", and
2. "the topic's title appears to be applied for reasons less formal than those of most articles".

Each of those deserve consideration as requiring editing, but neither, nor the combination of the two, is a ground for deletion.

    It goes without saying that articles tagged as stubs are likely to start without refs, and they can be tagged {{norefs}}. Editors will then look for specific statements that seem unfounded, and {{fact}} tag them to call forth collaborators willing to find the needed refs. Those who try and fail are likely to remove the least evident assertions, which often will bring forth the efforts of those willing to hunt harder for them, in order to keep the content from being whittled away. When articles get reduced to dictdefs, apparently because no one can find verification, that's evidence of a non-notable (i.e., non-verifiable) topic; if it can be verified that there is controversy about the topic, we probably should convert the article on the phenomenon cover the controversy about the would-be phenomenon; if not, deletion is in order. In this case, i summarized "new stub -- hopefully others will discuss their synergies & complementary foibles". If there weren't any verifiable synergies between them, or foibles that made them interesting -- i.e., if the fans called them "Tom and Jerry" only bcz they kept showing up with each speaking as soon as the other stopped, and people like the way "Tom" and "Jerry" go together (because of the cartoons, or the drink that inspired the title of the cartoons, or the London fict-chars who inspired the name of the drink), but there is no real benefit to writing a "joint biography" (as there is with the films Hemingway & Gellhorn and Nicholas and Alexandra, and the WP Rdr Lewis and Clark) -- then perhaps no one (among those who don't recall the surname in question) will ever look for either one's bio by typing "Tom and Jerry", and this article will never serve a purpose.

    We deal with sub-optimum names by proposing better names. Neologisms are usually bad titles for topics, but using a neologism to name a topic does not imply the topic is non-notable. It is sometimes the case that a term has more than lexicographic significance -- Fuck and Nigger are always my examples -- and it is very rare for a mere neologism to be a topic. But where the topic is notable, its having a neologism as its best currently available title is not reason for deletion.

    If you question the suitability of a topic for coverage in WP, that is reason for an AfD discussion; IMO you should in that case let this be closed w/ speedy-keep, and start a new AfD free ifof these red herrings.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)^{Belatedly placing, at 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC), my omitted sig.Jerzy•t}[reply]

• Delete unless it can be sourced. JIP | Talk 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I wish i could say "Google offers us a million and some likely sources on them", but we can't read more than a thousand without coming up with additional sort keys for each batch of fewer than a thousand. No one has even clearly suggested that Availability of sources is a problem, and in fact it is not.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether the article stays or goes, it most certainly is not a neologism. Dricherby (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A neologism is "defined as a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"... seems to meet that definition to me, as the phrase was coined to refer to these two announcers, and is certainly not mainstream. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "term, word or phrase". It's their name. Dricherby (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not their "name". They each have a different name, and this is a neologism that refers to them. It is similar to Kruk and Kuip, which was redirected at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   "They each have a different name" is a ridiculous (yes, i do mean laughable) quibble. The members of the Blue Jays each have a different name, but "the Blue Jays" is their collective name. "Tom and Jerry" identifies the same people as "Jerry and Tom" or "Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth", but only one of those two phrases is the well established name of the team or partnership they had/have. "Jerry and Tom " "blue jays" has "About 665 results" -- and of my first 10 displayed, 3 refer to the cartoon or Simon & Garfunkel, while 2 more have the wording

... Jerry (half of Tom and Jerry, and Tom, I miss you dearly ...)...

in which "Tom and Jerry" appears as a unit, but Google doesn't try to distinguish the accidental juxtapostion "... Jerry, and Tom" from the grammatical unit "Jerry and Tom". Well, i suppose half of the "About 1,130,000 results" from "Tom and Jerry" "blue jays" could be false hits of the same kinds... But in any case a 1700:1 ratio reflects not a neologism, but a well established regional catchphrase, and a name for the pair in the same way that Elvis and "The King" are names for you-know-who.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Being "similar" to Kruk and Kuip (now a Rdr to part of the sports org they work for) is a vague hint at something that influenced you, not an argument. What similarities are you claiming are relevant to this case? What principle do you think was established by that AfD process?
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kruk and Kuip are the announcers for the San Francisco Giants. That's their nickname. Tom and Jerry were announcers for the Blue Jays. Nicknames serve as neologisms and aren't notable independent of the subjects themselves. We don't have separate articles for The Sultan of Swat. Here's the AfD; I think it's our jumping off point, though I wouldn't say it formed a clear consensus in itself. I should've linked it earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their nickname: it's their given names. One of them is named Tom, the other Jerry. Dricherby (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nickname for them as a unit... they also had separate careers... again nothing about this pairing that cant be included in the broadcasters page... this is silly.Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a huge amount of material that can be used to source this, though most of it's behind the Toronto Star's paywall, so I don't have access. Dricherby (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because sources exist doesn't mean it's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quarter-century of newspaper coverage tends to suggest that something is notable. Dricherby (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•    Ah, but existence of sources does pretty much mean that, per WP:N#General notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

You'll want to read the guideline that that is drawn from; there's significant nuance.
--Jerzy•t 09:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The key word, "presumed", means that sourcing is not a guarantee. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love to imagine that that is a dead horse, and refrain from beating it further, but i can't in good conscience risk anyone taking that as the last word!
     "Presumed" indeed implies, in the notability guideline, that sourcing is not a guarantee, and thank you for reading far enuf to copy that fragment. But contrary to what you just insinuated, its meaning is "taken for granted; assumed to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary." That also implies that anyone claiming non-notability must, in the face of sources, provide proof of non-notability. The page we are discussing suggests two powerful approaches you could take to that task:

1. "WP:NOT" is full of ways of proving non-notability, in spite of adequate sourcing. Do you fail to mention one or two of them bcz none of them apply? (IMO none do.) In that case...
2. the guideline advises you (i've added emphasis)

   In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

And no one who's paying attention could imagine that what you've said about this aspect, in two successive responses, does anything to further this discussion.
--Jerzy•t 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... The two announcers that this refers to each have their own separate page and thus no point in having one for them as a team... any relevant material can be merged to their pages or to List of Toronto Blue Jays broadcasters.Spanneraol (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A million Web articles call them "Tom and Jerry", probably in many cases without surnames. (I hadn't read your opinion before raising, above, the issue of users relying on memory, who've forgotten the surnames.)
   You can't literally mean delete -- other sites have copied the article and i think the Dab linking it, and will continue serving the old versions. Or have created links to them. Experienced callers of AfDs routinely adjust accordingly, e.g., replacing the AfD'd article with a Rdr to an article or Dab. Are you arguing for making Tom and Jerry (announcers) into a Rdr to Tom and Jerry (disambiguation), and conversion of the Dab entry

* Tom and Jerry (announcers) (1981-2005), Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth, for Toronto Blue Jays radio

into the following?

Announcers "Tom and Jerry" for Toronto Blue Jays radio:

* Tom Cheek (1939 - 2005)

* Jerry Howarth (born 1939)

(MoSDab certainly does not provide for that, and IMO rules it out.)
--Jerzy•t 09:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is necessary I'd redirect to the Blue Jays broadcasters list page where this can be explained. Really how is their team different from any other announcing team? Teams are often referred to locally like this but no one outside of Toronto would know this name... I dont see why they need to have a page separate from the other pages I've mentioned. The broadcasters page can easily contain more text on the history of the broadcast teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, as i note in my response to the nom itself, above.

Tho i had never heard of them, no doubt i added them to the Dab, and wrote the stub, bcz the phrase showed up as such a striking collection of hits in a G-search: see details in my response, above, to the first "Comment".
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I considered changing my opinion to

Keep or ReDo as Rdr to (for now) the secn in either of the bios that already include

For the next 23 years, "Tom and Jerry" would be the radio voice of the Blue Jays.

(And probably the bio for whichever of them is still alive would be the better choice.)

   IMO, the stub i wrote would be likely to be expanded into something too big to be duplicated in both bios, and to call forth that content faster than the alternatives. But actually, my dog in this fight is not the stub, it's the Dab entry at Tom and Jerry (disambiguation) that points to the stub. I don't imagine anyone is actually going to type in "Tom and Jerry (announcers)" looking for them, but there are bound to be many who catch an interest w/o knowing either last name -- and maybe w/o knowing what team they were associated with. And for all the guff trying to turn NEO (or for all i can tell WTW) into a club to beat it with (and the insinuation that WP should not stoop to concern itself with what excites the hicks in Toronto), we probably can rely on those who call the results of deletion discussions (with the latitude to, e.g., merge even if it hasn't been mentioned) to make sense out of the opinions of those who haven't heard about {{merge}} discussions, or who think there shouldn't be even a redirect with a title they Don't Like. And if they don't pick up on the benefits (and the lack of harm) of having at least a Rdr, know ye that the wheels of WP turn slowly, but they eventually grind exceedingly fine, and it's seldom worth grinding your teeth trying to rush them.
--Jerzy•t 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, as there article individual articles on each. As the creator of "Toronto Blue Jays mascots", I have previously considered creating an article about Toronto Blue Jays game operations. Game operations—sheesh, there's no article—is all of the things about running a sports team on game days, aside from the players. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to the articles on the fellows as individuals. Anyone searching for the duo can find them through the entry (which will need to be revised) at Tom and Jerry (disambiguation). Deor (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comment by Deor immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further observations and comments. Having watched the sort of odd back-and-forth of largely unsupported editor comments in the AfD, I decided to spend a little time researching "Tom and Jerry." Here's what I found:

(1) The principal advocate for keeping this article, Jerzy, is responsible for about 85 yo 90% of its present content.

(2) The article consists of four sentences, all unreferenced in contravention of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS.

(3) The material within the article duplicates that included in the separate bios of Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth.

(4) A Google search ("Tom and Jerry Toronto Blue Jays") reveals only incidental mentions of the broadcasting duo, varying from routine to trivial. There is no substantial, in-depth coverage of "Tom and Jerry" as a "paired act" in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:GNG in order to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. This is not a "Burns and Allen"/"George and Gracie" situation where Cheek and Howarth were widely and commonly known by a paired nickname. Gracie Allen died almost 50 years ago, and "George and Gracie" is still a cultural icon. While it is clearly unfair to compare them to Burns and Allen, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of long-time Toronto residents think of Cheek and Howarth when they hear "Tom and Jerry" before they think of a certain cartoon mouse and cat.

(5) Minor point—neither the Tom Cheek article nor the Jerry Howarth bio even mention the "Tom and Jerry" pairing in their lead sections. Not exactly conclusive evidence, I know, but it does provide some idea of the prominence given to the "Tom and Jerry" nickname by other editors who have worked on the Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth bios.

(6) That being said, there are excellent reasons other than notability not to include a separate article under this name in Wikipedia. Arguments have been advanced in this AfD that readers searching for the pair would not be able to find them on Wikipedia in the absence of this stump of an article. Well, the reader viewing stats don't bear that out. For the month of May 2012, hear are the article hits:

Tom Cheek: 1,250 total page views (or a daily average of 40 hits) May 2012 stats;

Jerry Howarth: 762 total page views (or a daily average of 24.5 hits) May 2012 stats;

Tom and Jerry (disambiguation): 1,300 total page views (or a daily average of 41.9 hits) May 2012 stats; and

Tom and Jerry (announcers): 94 total page views (or a daily average of 3 hits) May 2012 stats.

Based on the evidence of the actual article page views, it would appear that Wikipedia readers who want to read about Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth are finding their bios without any problem; it's the "Tom and Jerry" article that appears to be difficult to find and/or largely unread, with or without help from the disambiguation page.

(7) I have modified the entry on the Tom and Jerry (disambiguation) page to link directly to the separate Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth articles.

In light of these observations, I see absolutely no reason why this article serves any purpose other than to duplicate content already set forth at greater length and greater depth in the separate Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth articles. I stand by my earlier !vote to delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the key point that should be looked at is whether the broadcast team of Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth collectively known as Tom and Jerry have significant coverage in reliable sources. This is distinct from just referring to the two of them together by the nickname. I haven't looked for such sourcing so I won't weigh in with an opinion yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After looking for sources to establish the two together as a notable team of announcers, it does not look like the coverage is there. This article behind a pay wall is promising, but it is unclear whether the article is really more about the Blue Jays broadcasting network. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see through the paywall, either, but note that it's perfectly possible for an article that's mostly about topic X to include substantial coverage of related topic Y. Dricherby (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of importance CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect to List of Toronto Blue Jays broadcasters#Radio, per WP:GNG. I found Tom & Jerry Always Will Be the Heart of Toronto Baseball at Bleacher Report, which indicates it may be a viable search term. Search term can be catered for at Tom and Jerry (disambiguation). -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of some self-published books. I can't find significant coverage of the book "Dead Paki Walking" in multiple reliable sources, only booksellers and blogs. Article claims that it's "best selling" but there is no citation for that. The Hollywood Reporter site that's linked to does not mention the books or the author at all. ... discospinster _talk 17:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is on Amazon's best seller list right now see here http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/362562031/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kinc_1_5_last — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs)

I don't believe the term 'best seller', in normal usage applies here. From Amazon the Kindle sales rank is;
"Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #34,285 Paid in Kindle Store"
SBaker43 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from 5 (Indonesian language) items returned from Google News (that I can't read), I seem unable to turn up anything that closely resembles WP:RS.  -- WikHead (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the Indonesian results from Google News appear to be about two other people: a government official responsible for mining, and a bogus doctor, both in Indonesia—A bit iffy (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for the clarification. I was very doubtful that these Indonesian results were related, but seemed the only shot in the dark possibility of source material better in quality than the social media and commercial-based sites I found in English.  -- WikHead (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have googled the author and can't see them meeting WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines--5 albert square (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Amazon.co.uk it's their 532,663rd bestseller (so not exactly Barbara Taylor Bradford). However it seems to do better as a Kindle download; it's

#35,788 Paid in Kindle Store

#5 in Kindle Store > Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Discrimination & Racism

#44 in Kindle Store > Books > Nonfiction > Politics & Current Affairs > Ideologies

#52 in Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Discrimination & Racism > Racism

I can't however see anything on WP:BK about "bestsellers". The book appears not to be notable enough to confer notability on its author, and nothing on the author's page itself appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being on any bestseller list is not something that would give such automatic and complete notability that it would merit an article all by itself. For example, even if this author's books had all hit the NYT bestseller lists that would not give the author notability. It would just make it more likely that there would be reliable sources that would show notability. As far as the notability of Amazon's bestseller lists, that's not even something worth looking at. There's so many specific categories that hitting number one isn't really that huge of a feat. (And this book didn't hit number one in any categories.) When you add on the fact that it's easy for authors to purchase kindle copies of their own books or give away free copies to yank up book ratings, well... there's a reason why Amazon bestseller lists aren't exactly something that fills the average person with awe. They're no NYT bestselling lists and if being on the NYT doesn't show notability, then an Amazon listing surely won't. Other than that, there's no reliable sources to show that any of these books or their author has notability enough to merit an article. Amazon is not a reliable source, it's a merchant website where the author and/or publisher can manipulate the text on the article to say whatever they want. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No claim to notability. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The book is number one now on Amazon in discrimination and racism (keeps moving up and down) see here http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/362562031/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kinc_1_5_last Also, can produce newspapers reports on this person - if the admin allowed me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so, if these newspaper reports are verifiable reports in reliable sources. If they're in self-published pamphlets, Myspace, Youtube and similar, please don't bother. WP:RS is a guide to what counts as a "reliable source". If you've been prevented from offering such sources please show where. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here you go The Neo Nazi website Redwatch have a link headed 'what the scum say about us' click on it and there is a newspaper article headed Student is Neo Nazi target in the Preston News see here http://www.redwatch.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs)

— Note to closing admin: Hanji131 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Tonywalton ^Talk 23:14, 25 June 2012[reply]

(UTC) And your point being Tonywalton This debate is about keeping this page open, like your pages have been kept open.

Comment I really don't understand that edit. My point is that if you are able to supply sensible (sensible in this context meaning WP:RS), then do so. Would you have made that comment if I was white? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry mate you've lost me. I don't undertand what skin colour has to do with anything? I could not care if you were white, black, brown whatever. Further, I haven't the first idea who you are or what you look like, so how would I know if you were white or not? Your point about sources is a valid one, I will shortly add a newspaper article to the andi ali page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) here is the newspaper articule http://studyingthebnp.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/blog-post_10.html this newspaper article is on Andi Ali's blog do i need to enlarge it and post it somewere for my wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Note to admin I can't add newspaper article to my page until you remove the block. There is no point asking me to put proper refs on page then preventing me from doing so.[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This appears to be a biography produced by Hanji31, which is essentially a single purpose account, probably owned by the subject of the article. WP does not like autobiography. He appears to have engaged in an edit war cover the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am not the subject of the article although I have read his books. I am somwhat puzzled about why people are still asking for this article to be deleted when newspaper articles have now been provided. The very think the Admins asked for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs)

• Question The newspaper article that Hanji31 refers to appears to be the one retrieved by this search on Asian Image. However, is Asian Image a reliable source? I don't seem to get any results if I search the ABC's site.—A bit iffy (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm unable to answer that specific question, but as multiple reference sources are required, I'm not sure that it's worth fussing over just one. The best-seller information listed above is probably not very useful either, as it has been obtained from commercial sites and is information that has been provided only for consumer interests.  -- WikHead (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are too weak.—A bit iffy (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article repeats information in UEFA Euro 2012 and contains information about hypothetical situations thought up by the author. All of the tie-breaking criteria information is clear in the main article, and the event are now in the past, making this article redundant and unnecessary Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - There is no need for this article as the main article mention the tie-breaking situations, and also each group article.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – an impressive piece of original research. However, it has no place in Wikipedia. – Kosm1fent 16:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR to the extreme. GiantSnowman 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sickening fanboy cruft. Lugnuts (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, NOT#ESSAY, needless repetition of the main competition and group articles... Take your pick. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UEFA Euro 2012 as a plausible search term (or bits of it, anyway, such as "ranking Euro 2012"). Tonywalton ^Talk 23:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Interesting bit of OR but does not appear to be an independent topic that is sourced to reliable sourcings which summarises a ranking system at the group stage. --LauraHale (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The information in the article is important but completely redundant (see UEFA Euro 2012#Group stage). Therefore, a redirect should be placed so that it appears in the search bar but is not actually another article. However, the hypothetical, even "fictive" (as the article dubs it), information should be removed entirely since by its nature it is unnecessary. Dar5995 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. Of the references included most are just listings, others are dead links or appear to be a PR notification, and others are interviews (primary reference). References to awards do not mention subject won an award. I do not see non-trivial coverage. Primarily a promotional piece. reddogsix (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• reference does show she won. Her name is listed as joy okie not her screen name Jj bunny. Jj bunny is a primary a list actor I'n the genre of nollywood.174.252.116.122 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, please refer to WP:BIAS We need more diverse viewpoints on topic before haphazardly arriving at a conclusion based on demographic sensitivity Dustyairs (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is sourced with reliable/notable refs. Sometimes deadlinks occur, that's the nature of the internet. If she is better known by her stage name, I see no harm in adding her real name to the article.Tamsier (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While some of the sources appear week, I see at least two articles at Modern Ghana (which I've generally taken to be a sufficiently reliable source) that have her as the primary subject, establishing notability via WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Reilly (soccer player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FOOTYN... O'Reilly has never played a senior game for Fulham JMHamo (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, championship qualifyers or academy games don't count for notability. Case of WP:TOOSOONSeasider91 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, fails WP:GNG.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme Athletes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is not notable; the information it contains, can be put in the article instead of a list. SyG (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean that this should be merged to Foreign Sports Talent Scheme? Per WP:ATD, that's not something for which you should have started this discussion, but you should have instead tried it through normal editing. And it's not a question of whether the "list" itself is notable, as the list is just a format of presenting information, but instead purely a question of whether listing these athletes is part of the encyclopedic coverage of the main topic, and if so then it's a size question of whether the list is too large to be kept in the main article or should be split off. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created the list and as per postdlf's comment, it was split off from the original article Foreign Sports Talent Scheme which I felt better off in its own list, rather than on the original article. Original article before the split here [4] which make the article a bit lengthy and unwieldy and now with added content, it will look very long... --Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Foreign Sports Talent Scheme. The topic is clearly notable, but the list in its current form does not give an impression of notability. Neither article is particularly long, so the combination won't be particularly long or unwieldy by Wikipedia standards. However, in the combined article the list could be made to seem more of a "natural" part of the article by breaking it into shorter lists and embedding them in subsections of the article. For example, the football list could be appended at the end of Foreign Sports Talent Scheme#Football. --Orlady (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per Orlady's comment, I created a subpage for reference on her suggestion. Subpage is here for comparison. Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 14:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lawless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The second Canadian World War I soldier "identified posthumously by forensic facial reconstruction and isotopes", not even the first. This is a pretty weak distinction, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can't argue with the deletion assertion above. I've taken the liberty of improving one of the sources, which was merely reprinted without attribution from The Telegram. Certainly RS, certainly significant and directly detailing. I'm neutral right now, but seeing the CBC and Telegram coverage, I'm almost inclined to a keep. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's a boatload of material on this subject (Google search for "Private Thomas Lawless"), because of the technology used to identify. (ex: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) BusterD (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; alternatively, merge into more general topic if one exists.
• Note the trivial level of coverage of anything about Lawless pre-2003. This looks like a case of someone clearly "notable for only one event" - in this case, their identification after death. The guideline here is to write about the event, not the person, but it's unlikely an article about the identification and reburial would be something we'd consider appropriate. The best thing to do here would be to mention Lawless in the context of an article on retrospective identification of WWI soldiers, but I don't know if we have anything like this to merge it into. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No disagreement. I can't seem to find any significant article on Wikipedia about identification of remains (outside mentions in autopsy and cadaver). The vast number of sources (almost 40,000 ghits in this one particular case) leads me to believe we should have some such article. The 9/11 article reports that remains identification is still ongoing for about 1,800 victims. Seems an important topic not covered here. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Forensic identification and body identification are both sadly underdeveloped. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see either one of those linked at autopsy or cadaver, so thanks for the links. It's entirely likely this subject isn't notable enough for inclusion, but some of the sourcing definitely belongs somewhere, so these two give me suitable targets. Forensic facial reconstruction is another likely target. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I agree with Andrew Gray's comments above as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 14:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Macellari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Her only real notability claim is her marriage to Burgess and her work as his agent (for which there is coverage). The article is interesting in that its opening sentence doesn't say what she did but who her parents were. Then, there is the fascinating paragraph about her son, which takes up half the article. Any material worth salvaging can be merged into the Burgess article. Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO . LibStar (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and admission of the nominator, page now has clear evidence of meeting WP:FOOTBALL Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod, (Footballers on the U-23 teams are not notable. They have to be a member of the senior team per WP:NFOOTBALL). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played ten times for Atlanta in last year's WPS: a "fully professional league". This passes WP:NFOOTBALL so not playing for the US senior team yet is irrelevant. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as she has played in the top tier of female football in the US, their female league is professional unlike the UK's super league and WPLSeasider91 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was until the end of the 2011 season, now it's a pro-am league (according to our article). But it was pro (with all of six teams!) when she played for Atlanta. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has played in a fully-pro soccer league, meets WP:NFOOTBALL - needs improving to meet GNG, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, at the time of the prod/afd there was no declared notability outside of USA U-23. But yes, right now we're in "improve, don't delete" territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is already a professional player. And therefore she have notability. SirEdimon (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 56 results on Google News. --LauraHale (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iphoneography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism, contested PROD. Reliable sources used do not mention the term "Iphoneography"  Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of wp:notability. The word is not even mentioned in the listed "references" (despite one of them even being a commercial I-Phone site) except for a blog on a person's website which is given as a "reference". North8000 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What the nomination says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are already a number of books in print either on this subject or that use this term in the text, including:

The Art of Iphoneography: A Guide to Mobile Creativity; http://www.artofiphoneography.com/

IPhone Photography & Video For Dummies - Page 221: "Ten Terrific Resources for iPhone Photography iPhoneography"

The Rough Guide to Digital Photography - Page 187 "there's a growing “iPhoneography” movement on the web..."

Create Great IPhone Photos: Apps, Tips, Tricks, and Effects - Page 183 "iPhone photos and iPhoneography tips you find online, ..."

Expressive Photography: The Shutter Sisters' Guide to Shooting ... - Page 9 "Stephanie lives with her family on a cattle farm where shejournals in the form of iPhoneography"

Getting the Most from Instagram

There are also numerous web sites and blogs devoted to Iphoneography:

http://www.iphoneography.com/

http://www.iphoneographycentral.com/

http://lifeinlofi.com/

http://content.photojojo.com/websites/what-iphonography-apps-are-hot-right-now/

http://moderniphoneographer.com/

Although I may not be a fan of this as a concept, that doesn't mean it hasn't reached notability status. It does appear that there is enough evidence to support the argument that this subject meets WP's notability guidelines.

• I vote to Keep the article. Several of the sources listed above be added. Comments? DSiegfried (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minus the trivial lists of editing techniques (which apply to any photography application) and software, there's not much to say here that can't be said briefly in the main article, namely, that the iPhone is also a popular digital camera. That the inane term "Iphoneography" has some use is not really relevant because we are not writing a dictionary. As soon as we have some actual, substantial content that can be spun off into a WP:SS subarticle about iPhone photography, I'm all for creating one.  Sandstein  05:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per improvement (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thattai Bhatias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives no context for verification, however the subject appears to be a small group of families and their migratory path. No references provided to show that they are notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are there. Adding. Wifione ^Message 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This appears to be an worth while topic, but the article's intro is very much in need of better description.  -- WikHead (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe User:Wifione's efforts have removed any doubts of notability. The article could still use a bit of work but that's no reason to delete. I have posted my only major concern to the article's talk page, and I'm quite certain that it will indeed be addressed by someone familiar with the topic.  -- WikHead (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Georgetown College. Wifione ^Message 14:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President's House Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable college association at a 'small' college. Only referenced to the association's own website. Peridon (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Georgetown College.  This topic is already covered in the encyclopedia, so a straight deletion is not policy-based.  The article has a problem in that it is mostly duplicated at this site.  One of the two is not properly attributed, see WP:Copyright problems#Handling previously published text on Wikipedia.  One way to resolve this problem is to delete the edit history on Wikipedia.  I am assuming here that the topic will fail wp:notability if the research is done, but I've not done so myself.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've no objection to a delete and redirect. Peridon (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Western (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK criteria. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, article already shows multiple reviews from reliable sources like Publishers Weekly, and The Critic. Additional sources could be easily found at google books (392 entries). A search on News archives reveal multiple articles on Los Angeles Times ([10],[11]) plus the already mentioned article on The Advocate. Clearly passes WP:NBOOK criterium #1. A withdrawal is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent reviews. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable based on the above sources. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is notable per Cavarrone (above) Theopolisme _TALK 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hogtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is almost entirely unsourced. JN466 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there's enough information and sources out there to turn it into a proper article, albeit brief. In particular, it can cover the alleged issue of asphyxiation.[12][13][14] Regards, RJH (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here are some more book sources that could be of use in building up this article: [15] [16] [17]. Being unsourced is not a valid argument for deletion unless it's a BLP.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 10:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources already given, no idea why this was relisted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inadequate reasons for deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT - Tying together every use of the word in rodeo, confinement, torture, and sexual bondage doesn't change the fact that these are just dictionary terms. Notes on asphyxiation danger doesn't change this fact and tends towards making this into a how to. If hogties are notably used in the context of rodeo, confinement, torture, whatever then perhaps a subsection should be discussed in the proper article, but listing every use of the word tends toward WP:LISTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's been significant coverage in reliable sources on the controversy surrounding the safety of this procedure in law-enforcement contexts. That's more than a definition. A couple of the sources evidencing this are paywalled (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83808235.html, http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/1998/09000/Reexamination_of_Custody_Restraint_Position_and.1.aspx). --j⚛e decker^talk 14:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. I found almost no coverage of the organization in a Google News archive search, and certainly no significant coverage. Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This organization is likely not notable enough to merit a wiki article. --Artene50 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 10:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because Google doesn't find much information online doesn't mean the organizastion is not notable. The article needs expanding, I'll try searching for some decent references. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 17:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you think you should !vote Keep after you find sources establishing notability?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reliable sources found, minimal GNews hits. GregJackP Boomer! 04:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - perhaps leaning towards keep, since keep arguments align to policy better than delete ones. WilyD 10:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric Boussoughou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Gabonese top flight. In the absence of reliable sourcing stating that this league is fully, playing in it is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played in 2012 Africa Cup of Nations, played at highest level in Gabon. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he never actually played any matches at the ACN, and more importantly has never played for Gabon at all, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL criterion 1. And the highest level in Gabon is not fully pro, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL criterion 2. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How about abandoning the bot-like wikilawyering WikiProject Football groupthink for once and actually applying some common sense. Is it in the best interest of this encyclopedia to consider the captain of an Olympic-qualifying team[18] as less notable than a player who has come on as a last minute substitute in one League Two match? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the article creator written more than barely two lines then maybe the article would have a greater and clearer claim to notability. I hardly see what the project gains from substubs such as this; we should be aiming for quality, not quantity. And rather than patronising !voters with phrases like "bot-like wikilawyering WikiProject Football groupthink" I think it would be more productive to discuss the article itself. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not reply to the substantive issue that I raised, rather than trying to pretend that your (and several other members' of Wikiproject Football) continual pasting of "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" into deletion discussions in any way contributes to a proper consideration of any article's merits? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, Players who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition, even though he didn't play I would say he represented his country in the Africa Cup of Nations. I also agree with Phil Bridger's point about common sense - as a captain of his team he will compete in the Olympics in a couple of months unless something extraordinary happens. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - previous consensus at two AfDs - 1, 2 - established that being a squad member at the ACN was not enough. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - non-notable. GiantSnowman 21:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The point that I made above about wikilawyering has been amply confirmed by the "delete" opinions given here. We are supposed to follow the spirit rather than the letter of guidelines. The spirit of the various special notability guidelines in or linked from WP:BIO is that people who have verifiably reached a certain level in their field are regarded as notable. This player's level of achievement in football, having captained a national team to Olympic qualification, is way above that of players who have turned out for a match or two in Lega Pro Seconda Divisione or League Two and, on that basis, are considered notable without a squeak of objection. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no significant media coverage and no senior international appearance, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. He never played in the African Cup of Nations, thus he never represented his country IMO – and Phil Bridger, let reliable sources decide whether being named in a tournament squad and not playing is a valid notability claim. Are there any sources suggesting that the player became notable by that? No? Pity. Oh, also learn to respect a different opinion than yours without accusing others of "wikilawyering". Okay? Thank you. – Kosm1fent 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 10:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not convinced the article quite meets GNG, although the (short) BBC articles are nearly enough. However, if he is likely to play in the Olympics can't we just wait a few weeks? Eldumpo (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently fails the criteria for inclusion. If/When he is involved with the Olympics, it can be undeleted - but although that is likely to happen, we can't guarantee it. Until it has happened, the correct result is to delete the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pound for pound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple dictionary definition of a slang term used by sports commentators and others. The slang term usually simply means 'best, ignoring the weight class', or 'per weight' and is an adjective. Per WP:MOS: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages", there's no obvious article to redirect this too, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Teapeat (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and request speedy close as bad-faith nomination. The nominator previously redirected the article to Wiktionary. After undoing the redirect I made numerous improvements to the article which addressed all of the nominator's concerns. This is a nuanced concept, not a simple adjective. (I removed the information from the article that was strictly dictionary-related.) Wikipedia does not have firm rules. While articles about adjectives are generally discouraged, some are absolutely necessary (i.e. "heavyweight", "strawweight", ect.) For the adjective "strawweight", for example, we have 2 articles: "flyweight (MMA)", and "minimumweight" for boxing. Rather than have multiple "pound for pound" articles, I wanted to condense the information into one. As I describe below, the nominator has attempted to disguise that, by moving the page before nominating. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that before nominating, the nominator quietly moved the page back from pound for pound (sport) in an attempt to make it look like a simple dicttionary entry in spite of the numerous changes I had made. He lied, using an edit summary saying: "revert undiscussed move". I most certainly discussed it on the talk page prior to moving it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is when you having two-way communication between parties, preferably leading to an agreement, not simply you stating something, and then doing it as a fait accompli.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go troll someplace else. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I find that he's materially addressed none of my concerns, otherwise I wouldn't have called an AFD, it's still an adjective, and if there was any way it could be made encyclopedic I would have simply done it. The appropriate dictionary entry is here: wiktionary:pound-for-pound, and there's nothing wrong with that, at least.Teapeat (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can "find" that I've addressed none of your concerns, but the fact is that I've addressed each one you listed, which is why this is a bad-faith nomination. The closing admin will easily see that, looking at the article's talk page and history. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's absolutely necessary, I'll create the article "pound for pound (boxing)", but I'd much rather focus on improving the one that already exists, simply moving it back to "pound for pound (sport)". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and this isn't about you.Teapeat (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently is. And make no mistakes; if this article is deleted, I will create and source pound for pound (boxing). (You know, the one you suggested?) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As is - I think the term is used across a variety of martial arts not just boxing or mixed martial arts. The fact that there are maintained lists makes it more than just a dictionary term. It may be a subjective list but it exists all the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Classic DICDEF. Plenty of terms are used in plenty of places, Wikipedia shouldn't be defining dictionary terms in this way, we're here to write an encyclopedia.GliderMaven (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pound for pound is a common expression in English generally -- any use in sports is relatively recent. The ESPN rankings and so on don't come anywhere near justifying an article on the term's specific use in sprots. EEng (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common English use is not just "pound for pound", but occurs as part of the transitive-verbal expression "match [something] pound for pound",[19] and has a rather different meaning then, totally unrelated to quality ranking. I don't know if the sports-related meaning and use of the term that is the topic of the article under discussion meets our notability requirements, but it is definitely different; when found in other use (e.g. here and here), it is obviously derived from the sports-related competitive ranking meaning.  --Lambiam 09:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, diagramming sentences aside, the usage I had in mind is exemplified by children, pound for pound, need more energy than adults [20] i.e. while adults need more calories than children on an absolute basis, children need more after adjusting for the relative weight of children vs. adults. Other examples:

• pound for pound, California dates are one of the best natural sources of potassium [21]
• On a pound for pound basis, hay cubes are more expensive than traditional hay [22]

This meaning is in keeping with the sports use, and my original arguments stand.

EEng (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments? There's no reason to have an article comparing the potassium-content of dates or the price of hay. There is good reason to have an article on the nuanced concept of this comparison as used in sport. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said argument (singular), sorry. And it was: "Pound for pound" is a common expression in English generally -- any use in sports is relatively recent. I wasn't suggesting an article on hay prices (anyway, there already is one), but arguing that the meaning of the term in boxing is no different than its meaning in general usage.

Then your argument is incorrect. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not saying how it's incorrect. See below.

• Keep. Article already contains more than dictionary content and has the potential for more about the concept. HBO boxing writer Bill Detloff's[23] essay on the concept is another useful source.[24]--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essay confirms that, as used in boxing, the term means exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage, and exactly analogous to the examples I gave above. EEng (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So "meaning exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage" is a criterion to delete articles now? Interesting. "Money" means exactly what you'd think it would. Perhaps we should start an AfD for that. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correct analogy would be articles on "Money (used to buy milk)", "Money (used to buy gasoline)" and so on -- there's nothing to say beyond what's in "Money". But back to the case at hand, if the sources in the article (plus I've looked around a bit on the net) are indicative of the available discussions of comparisons of fighters across weight classes, the article can never be more than selective repetition of sports writers' personal opinions. To the extent that's true there's nothing to justify a p.f.p. article (on Wikipedia) separate from a dictionary def of p.f.p (on Wiktionary). But if you could come up with some sources with more than superficial discussion and personal opinion things would be different. EEng (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, EEng. I don't mean to badger you. The nominator is a troll, and I shouldn't have let my frustration cause me to mock your good-faith !vote. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't see offhand (not that I really looked) the trolling behavior to which you refer, we've all said things we regret when feeling under attack. Let us speak no more of it. However, please consider what I say above. I think there could be a place for Pound for pound rankings (boxing), and Pound for pound rankings (wrestling) and so on -- assuming there really is serious, in-depth commentary, in a particular sport, from which the corresponding article could draw. But any article that tries to be, broadly, Pound-for-pound rankings (sports) would have to be so general as to be, as I keep harping, merely a straightforward application of the general idea, outside of sports, to sports. (Someone's example, below, of ants and elephants is better than mine above, by the way.) EEng (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you're wrong. It's just that creating multiple articles (pfp boxing, pfp collegiate wrestling, pfp mma, ect.) will create even more stubs. So condensing them for the time being into "pound for pound (sport)" (which the nominator tried to cover up) seems to me to be the best way to go for now. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Money' is a noun though, and actually the topic is quite subtle, involves 'liquidity' and 'digital money' and all kinds of things, it's not just a dictionary definition like this.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia/encyclopedias just don't have this type of article on adjectives, it's actually an ISNOT. If we started to have articles like this on adjectives then we will have to create articles like beautiful, but the article is beauty. Similarly in this case, the central topic(s) are boxers/boxing and martial artists and any material that can be, should be merged there.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't, and no, it shouldn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe this phrase is more of a dictionary definition. It's true it's now frequently used in boxing and MMA circles, but it's been used for much longer as a comparative term. For example, "pound for pound ants are stronger than elephants". It seems like it would be a better fit in Wiktionary than in Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one is suggesting removing the Wiktionary entry. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it was sourceable before and is now sourced. Lots of phrases are both defined in Wiktionary and discussed as a topic or concept in Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a dictionary definition, and its use in boxing and MMA is consistent with that definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 10:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep content perfecty suitable for an encyclopedia, with high potential for expansion. Cavarrone (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not believe that pound for pound as a topic is appropriate for Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I don't see any encyclopedic that might be added beyond the definition. Jfgslo (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then apparently you haven't even read the article. But I suppose an editor who once PRODed 124 articles for deletion at one time wouldn't be bothered to actually look at the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article and the sources cited there and there is simply no material for encyclopedic content when only one source is somehow related to the definition. Your ad hominem and poisoning the well arguments certainly do not show in any way how my rationale for deletion is incorrect according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfgslo (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading it again. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Outside of the dictionary definition, the usage of the term in some other way would need WP:RS about the usage of the term, not simply referencing others using the term or WP:OR on how the term is being used by various sources. None of the sources provided, nor any found in a quick web/news search, are ABOUT the term. The HBO article almost comes close, but even if it did then it would be a single source of dubious reliability (written by an HBO staffer for their "inside HBO" desk). Ultimately, it is either DICDEF, or fails WP:GNG. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From what I can see, this is sufficiently more than a dictionary definition to warrant an entry on Wikipedia, and is sourced enough to mean that it should be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks for the help Boleyn. :) (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Khan (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MOS:DABRL says that there should be some scope of creation of the red links in a disambiguation page. This page has 1 blue link and 1 red link, and the red link is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so having a dab page is not required. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2 entries added This, as it stood, was a candidate for Template:db-disambig, speedy delete. However, a quick search found 2 more entries, one with an article, and one meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Echo (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MOS:DABRL says that there should be some scope of creation of the red links in a disambiguation page. This page has 1 blue link and 1 red link, and the red link is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so having a dab page is not required. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added 4 more entries Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keiler (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MOS:DABRL says that there should be some scope of creation of the red links in a disambiguation page. This page has 1 blue link and 1 red link, and the red link is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so having a dab page is not required. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added 2 entries Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]